Come out of your closet and take your licks. How can you back an explicitly pro-religion party that thinks women are second-class citizens, chattels of their husbands and The State, and who favors widening the gap between the rich and non-rich even more?

Views: 3376

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This, from the Totally Off-Topic Department (look it up!):

SOUP'S ON!

Jury hears Los Angeles chef say how he cooked wife
Associated Press – Wed, Sep 19, 2012

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A chef won't take the stand in his own defense in a trial where he's accused of killing his wife and then cooking her body for four days in boiling water to get rid of the evidence, according to his attorney.

http://news.yahoo.com/jury-hears-los-angeles-chef-cooked-wife-15361...

(I can't seem to get that Campbel's Soup tune out of my head --)

Was she a young and tender thing? Were Fava beans somehow included? LOL

RE: "Was she a young and tender thing?" - at first, no.

Personally, I don't see how any atheist could support the Republican Party if they actually read the Republican Party Platform.

Oh, it's entirely possible that they consider other issues more important than church/state issues or creationism.  Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean fighting religion is the most important thing in your life.  Of course most people here on an atheist site are by definition not apathetic on these issues... or they wouldn't be here.

However it must be getting more and more difficult for atheists with an R next to their name to ignore the god-bothering.

Interesting, speaking of which, that no one has commented on the fact that the Ds put some theocratic language into their platform at the convention; in fact their leadership rammed it through.  If, as someone said earlier, that's a disqualifier for him, he/she ought not to vote for either of the major parties.

I personally find both parties to be stinking piles of shit, for slightly differing reasons.  I live in a battleground state; I may have to decide which pile smells slightly less stinky rather than vote for a third party or simply not check any box at all for that race, as I go on down the ballot to vote against bullshit "personhood" amendments (sigh, again) and in favor of other things.

[Just checked and HAH!  No personhood on the ballot this year!   I guess losing 70-30 twice in a row does make it harder to try again.]

RE: "no one has commented on the fact that the Ds put some theocratic language into their platform at the convention"

I commented, some time back, when it was announced that they had left it out, but when they hastily decided to re-insert it, I was too disgusted to say anything. But the truth is, that as close as the race is, had I been there and known, as is clear now, that the slightest thing could be the tipping point, I might well have advised them myself to reinsert it. If that's what it takes to keep Romney out of the Oval Office, I can live with that.

Oh, come on, Steve!  There is no comparison between the full on theocratic republic platform and the democratic platform that mentions god only because they were afraid of the PR fallout!

I expect that the theocrats, if they lose their attempt via the RNC, will be pragmatic about it and attempt the same via the DNC. One good thing could be that atleast the voting public will have had a heads up before hand. Having experienced the short-term memorys of atleast one Corp, the DNC might lose interest in history and welcome the theocrats as a voting block, but with the similar strings/demands.

Suppose the Democrats weren't a big tent. One of the problems the GOP has is that of alienating blocks of voters: women, minorities, atheists. The Dems have to offer them a home.

Maybe because I'm a lot older than you, I can see the trajectory of the two parties. The Democrats are in no way going back to 1950. The entire idea is absurd. It's the Republicans who are self-destructing.

RE: "because I'm a lot older than you"

I've about six different cheap shots, just poised to fly off my fingertips, but it's been a long day and I'm fresh out of giggles, so I'll give you a pass --

The idea of a theocratic Democratic Party doesn't even pass the giggle test. Sorry. The trend has long been in the opposite direction. This time they actually forgot to put a mention of God in the platform, which the "corrected." Perhaps next time they'll forget to correct it.

Yes, but as you go through their platform, so many things hinge on Christian theocracy.  Yes, the Dems have theocracy in their platform too, but nowhere near to the extent of the Repubs.  Why not adopt positions closer to the Green Party, for example?  Theirs is an example of a platform that leaves god/religion out of their positions.  If you like anything in the Repub platform, it is so earmarked with Christian theocracy that, imo, you cannot vote Repub and not vote for Christian theocracy - and that is precisely their intent.

It would be nice to separate the issues without tying religion to the platform, but it's like linkage disequilibrium - Christian theocracy is disproportionately tied to many of the Repub positions far more than the Dems (but Obama and his "god" spouting is annoying too, at least to me).

RSS

Events

Blog Posts

It's all Greek to me

Posted by Simon Mathews on April 15, 2015 at 4:14am 18 Comments

Free at last

Posted by Belle Rose on April 15, 2015 at 1:00am 3 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service